Visions of the Future of Capitalism

|Peter Boettke|

Earlier this year I published my book, The Struggle for a Better World which consists of various published versions of public lectures I have given over roughly between 2000-2020 mainly at learned societies and associations.  They have also reflect a little bit of my globetrotting during that period as the site of lectures have ranged from New Zealand to East and Central Europe. These various lectures represent my attempt to come to grips not only with the trials and tribulations of post-communist transformation and economic development more generally that occupied my scholarly attention from the mid-1980s to 2000s, but my reaction to a changing world of ideas and world of practical affairs in the wake of 9/11 and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.  I wrote a new introduction and new conclusion to address the changing situation as I see it since the Covid 19 pandemic of 2020, and the increasing awareness of militarization of police and injustice in our society.  

My podcast with Marian Tupy from last May will give you a good sense of what I am up to in the book.  Those lectures are my sincere attempt to understand the human condition using the tools of economic reasoning to aid me in that scholarly task, but also as a citizen to try to contemplate on the basis of that effort to understand how we may in fact engage in the project of how to repair this broken world.  It is, as I explain, a struggle in both the scholarly and the citizen within a democratic society sense.  It is a joyous struggle, I might add, but it doesn't get any easier.  Scholarship and science exist at the edge of error and we do best when we remember that, and commit ourselves to life-long learning.

Ilia Murtazashvili has provided, in my humble opinion, an excellent comparative review of my perspective with that of the rather brilliant Daniel Bromley. Bromley is in the same intellectual tradition as the wonderful Warren Samuels, and also deeply familiar with the works of the Ostroms.  Like Warren, he is more comfortable with the older institutionalism of the Wisconsin School than with the New Institutionalism of Douglass North and Oliver Williamson.  See Malcolm Rutherford's classic text Institutions in Economics for a good accounting of the different perspectives. As Ilia writes: 

In this review essay, I compare and contrast Peter Boettke’s The Struggle for a Better World (Mercatus Center, 2021) and Daniel Bromley’s Possessive Individualism: A Crisis of Capitalism (Oxford University Press, 2019). Each of these books considers the future of capitalism. Boettke’s Struggle sees capitalism as the only morally and economically justifiable system but that continual effort is necessary to ensure the capitalist enterprise succeeds. Bromley’s Crisis sees capitalism as a spent force that no longer does what it was meant to do—namely, improve the economic well-being of households. There are surprisingly many points of agreement in these books, most notably a concern for the downtrodden in society and an appreciation for the legitimation crisis confronting capitalism. There are also important differences that will give anyone interested in the future of capitalism much to ponder. Boettke sees unconstrained government as the primary threat to legitimacy; Bromley identifies the possessive individualism that lies at the heart of our current capitalist system as the source of the crisis. Both books make a significant contribution to our understanding of the institutions governing capitalist economies and powerful arguments as we contemplate the future of capitalism.

I am very grateful to Ilia for writing such a thoughtful essay, and it will give me a lot to chew on especially as I am working my way through the most recent book of another scholar that exists in the Warren Samuels, Dan Bromley, Malcolm Rutherford intellectual space, Geoffrey Hodgson and his new book Liberal Solidarity.  

I hope Ilia's essay inspires others, especially graduate students in the social and policy sciences as well as the humanities, to join with us in this struggle to understand the human condition, and to contemplate what it might take to repair this broken world of ours. We need to have honest, frank and open conversations.  Murtazashvili provides us with a model of how to do that.

Comments

[Roger McKinney]

Your book looks really interesting and I’m looking forward to reading it. But I have been convinced by Huntington and Harrison (Culture Matters) and Helmut Schoeck (Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior) that religion determines our institutions. The real debate between capitalists and socialists is over human nature. Socialists believe we are born good and turn bad only because of oppression. The state can perfect humanity by ridding society of oppression.

Capitalism depends on the ancient Christian doctrine of original sin. Even atheists like Hume agreed with that doctrine. Capitalism says human nature is data and only God can change it. So as Hume wrote, we should design out institutions as if every politician and bureaucrat were a knave. Capitalism insists on very limited government because politicians are not angels.

Schoeck demonstrates that society creates institutions on the basis of the level of envy in it. Envy dominated the world for most of human history so societies created institutions that satisfied the most envious and crushed innovation. Christianity suppressed envy enough to allow for innovation and economic growth only in the 17th century and only in the Dutch Republic, then England and Anglo countries

[Bee]

Unconvinced. The inability of these scholars to develop cogent and succinct arguments leaves me Unconvinced that their effort will ever be fruitful. I would suggest that they more clearly articulate first principles. Then move to graphically depict the nomological network that they currently ponderously and circuitously present. This will ensure they actually grasp what they say and communicate the ideas clearly. I suspect that much of this work is merely verbal description that obfuscates the true nature of their thought.

[K. M.]

I was just wondering, since prof. Boettke is interested in understanding how the transition from socialism affected countries of the post-communist region, whether he heard about this brand New monumental book, by two Hungarians, called "The Anatomy of Post-Communist regimes". It is a huge and I think, brilliant book which creates a brand new, easy to use and easy to understand framework of understanding, that can help us get a grip on these regimes. I highly recommend it, it's a great hit here in Europe, and it's available online completely free:
https://www.postcommunistregimes.com/

Az i understand, one of the two authors, Mr. Madlovics is in fact an Austrian type thinker. Their work moves mainly on Weberian lines, but I wouldn't be able to do it justice in a comment. You gotta see at least the table of content.